ML20030D973
| ML20030D973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1981 |
| From: | Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109170233 | |
| Download: ML20030D973 (22) | |
Text
.
9/15/81 g\\"
4 UNITED STATES OF At1 ERICA C3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2
PJ In the Matter of
)
~h' k,#
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155
)
(Big Rock Point Plant)
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS I.
_IFTRODUCTION The Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to the adoitional contentions filed by Intervenors Christa-Maria, Jim Mills and Joanne Bier (Intervenors) on September 4, The Staff opposes the admission of any of these contentions as 1981.
j matters in controversy in this proceeding, on the grounds that:
1.
The contentions are untimely; and 2.
The contentions do not meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R 9 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations.
II.
BACKGROUND In its Order following Special Prehearing Conference dated January 15, 1980, tne Licensing Board adr ited a prehearing schedule.
In accordance with that schedule Intervenors have filed eighteen " additional contentions". These contentions are not admissible as matters in controversy in this proceeding.
lxo?
sf 8109170233 810915 PDR ADOCK 05000155 G
. III. DISCUSSION A.
All of Intervenors' Contentions are Untimely, and a Balancing of the Five Factors Set Forth in 9 2.714(a)(1)(i-v) of the Commission's Regulations Weighs Against Their Admission as Matters in Controversy in this Proceeding.
When a contention is filed late in a proceeding, its admissibility must be judged by a balancing of the five factors. listed in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1)(1-v) of the Commission's regulations.
Pacific Gas and Elec-tric Company (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 & 2), CLI-81-5,13 NRC 361, 364 (1981); see 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b).
In order fo any judgment to be made concerning these five factors, the proponent of s late contention must affirmatively address these factors and demonstra.e that, on balance, his contentions should be admitted as matters in controversy in this proceeding.
See, Duke Power Company (Perkins fluclear Statica, Units 1, 2 and 3),
AlaB-615, 12 (IRC 350, 352 (1980).
The first and most important factor whicn must be considered in 1
determining the admissibility of Intervenors' late-filed contentions is l
l whether good cause exists for the late filing. When a party filing late contentions fails to demonstrate the existence of good cause for this late filing, it should be incumbent on that party, as it is upon a late petitioner for leave to intervene, to make a particularly strong showing with respect to the remaining factors. See Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-431, 6 f4RC 460, 462 (1977).
Intervenors here have made no attempt to address any of the factors l
l contained in 9 2.714(a)(1)(1-v).
Therefore, no good cause has been 1
4
. established by Intervenors for their late-filed contentions. They merely argue that they are permitted to file these additional contentions as a matter of right and, in the alternative, that the contentions present safety questions which the Board indicated could be raised at any time during the proceeding. Additional Contentions of Inte?venors Christa-Maria, Jim Mills and Joanne Bier or Alternatively Motion for Leave to File Additional Contentions at 1 (September 4,1981).
Intervenors based their argument on the existence 'in the prehearing schedule adopted by the Board of a brief period for the filing of new contentions.
However, that prehearing schedule specifically limits the type of contentions to be filed during that period to:
... any new contentions based on new information contained in SER and EIA...."
Intervenors do not claim that any of their contentions are based on new information contained in either of the Staff's documents.
Wnile the Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order set aside a brief period for the filing of new contentions once the Staff's safety and environmental documents had been issued, tnat order in no way changed j
the requirements for the admissibility of contentions as set forth in l
i 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. The rules of the Commission specifically state that contentions will be submitted before the first prehearing conference.
10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b). Contentions or supplements filed after that time l
are late and cannot be admitted if the factors in S 2.714(a)(1) are not met. A party who waits until late in a proceeding to submit additional contentions bears the burden of demonstrating why these contentions could not have been filed in a timely fashion. This showing must include a l
discussion of why the five factors in @ 2.714(a)(1)(1-v) should weigh in l
. favor of the admission of new contentions-.
Intervenors here have not even made an attempt to m 4ke such a showing.
Intervenors' claim that they are permitted to raise these additional contentions because they relate to safety questions and because the Board Chairman said that such safety-questions could be raised at any time during the proceeding is unfounded.
The Chaiman's statement, as quoted by Intervenors, pointedly states that tne Board would consider safety questions discovered during the proceeding. This statement would require at the very least a showing that, in fact, the contention arose from new information not available to the Intervenors at the time their contentions were formulated.
' gain, Intervenors do not attempt to argue that they have discovered new information relating to any of their additional contentiens.
For the reasons just discussed Intervenors have failed to establish good cause for their tardy filing of these additional contentions. This factor weighs heavily against the admission of Intervenors' proposed contentions as matters in controversy in this proceeding.
In addition, their burden with respect to the remaining factors must become heavier.
Intervenors have not overcome this burden.
The second factor to be balanced in determining whether Intervenors proposed contentions should be admitted into this proceeding is the availa-bility of other means whereby Intervenors' interests will be protected.
Intervenors are at present parties to this proceeding. Therefore, they have had ample opportunity to insure that the interests set forth in their riginal petition to intervene have been and are being protected.
- In addition, some of the issues Intervenors now raise apply to the Big Rock facility as it currently exists rather than to the proposed spent
> fuel pool expansion. These issues include earthquakes, tornado missiles, and turbine missiles. Such concerns could be raised through petitions filed under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206. Another of their interests has already been litigated in this proceeding. Consumers _ Power Company (Big Rock Point Plant), ALAB-636,13 liRC 312 (1980). On August 14,1981, Inter-venors filed a petition for review of ALAB-636 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This interest centers around the prepara-tion of an environmental impact statement on the continued operation of Big Rock. See Additional Contention 11-2.
Still others could already be covered by existing admitted contentions. See Additional Contentions 1-1 and 1-2.
This factor to some e.% cent mav weigh in favor of admission of those contentions directly related to this spent fuel pool expansion.
However, since they could have raisea these contentions at any time in the past two years, this factor should not weigh heavily for the admission of any additional contentions.
The third factor that tne Board must consider is the extent to which l
Intervencrs' participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
10 C.F.R. s 2.714(a)(1)(iii).
Intervenors' additional contentions are general statements with no supporting facts.
Intervenors i
have not attempted to show what they could add in the way of expertise in tne subject areas they now raise. Therefore, this factor must weigh l
against the admission of these late-filed contentions.
l The fourth factor to be considered is the extent to which Inter-l venors' interests will be represented by existing parties. As is mentioned above, Intervernors are already parties to this proceeding.
l l
1
. Therefore, they may represent their own interests. These interests are-exemplified by the contentions already admitted in this proceeding.
Intervenors' additional contentions constitutes an attempt to expand those interests substantially.
Only Intervenors' original interests should be considered when weighing this factor. Since Intervenors are aiready partie:, tnis factor would, therefore, weigh against the dission of any of Intervenors' additional contentions in this proceeding.
The final factor, however, weighs heavily against the admission of dny of these contentions. The Board must evaluate the extent to which Intervenors' participation, as defined by these new contentions, would broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. As stated above Intervenors have proposed eighteen contentions. Most of these contentions have subparts.
Providing responses to this number of contentions would substantially delay the proceeding.
In addition, approximately sixteen of these additional contentions represent new issues not now in controversy in the proceeding.
Introduction of these sixteen new issues would, therefore, expand greatly the issues in controversy in this proceeding. Therefore, tnis factor must weigh heavily against the admission of Intervernors' additional contentions.
A balancing of these five factors shows that there are four factors which weigh against the admission of Intervenors' additional contentions.
The remaining factor concerning the availability of other means to protect their interest weighs only slightly in Intervenors' favor.
In fact.it is difficult to say whether it weighs much in Intervenors' favor at all, since Intervenors failed to make any affirmative showing with regard to this factor. On balance, therefore, the five factors weigh against the
. admission of InterVenors' additional contentions as matters in contro-versy in this proceeding.
B.
Intervenor s' Additional Contentions Fail to Meet the Basis Requirement of 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(b) and Should not be Admitted.
1.
Principles Governing the Admissibility of Contentions As a general matter, in order for proposed contentions to be found admissible, they must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing initiating the proceeding, and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. i 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law.
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Unit Nos.1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973), aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley, Unit No.
1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973).
10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b) requires that a list of contentions which intarvenors seek to have litigated be filed along with the bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity.M The purpose of the basis requirement of 1/
A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (u) it challenges the basic structure of Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach 30ttom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-2'. (1974).
. 10 C.F.R. s 2.714 is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the infirmities listed in fn.1, to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject matter in the proceeding, and to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra, at 20.
Evaluation of the adequacy of basis in the context of this proceeding snould be distinguished from the situation nomally encountered at the early stages of a proceeding where the availability of documentation is more limited. See Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Sta?. ion, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 548 (1980), where initial contentions need only identify the reasons for the contention.
Here all the pertinent evaluation documents and extensive discovery have been made available to Intervenors.
Generalized allegations are clearly insufficient and Intervenors are required to come forward with specific factual basis for any late-filed contention. Cf. Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-654, NRC (September 11,1981) (intervenors required to make a stronger showing of basis for their contentions in order to gain an evidentiary hearing on the healtn effects of radon emissions).
i l
2.
Additional Contention 1 Fails to Meet the Basis Requirement of l
10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b) and Should not be Admitted.
l l
l Additional Contentior.1 is untimely. See section III.A, supra.
l However, even if Additional Contention 1 were timely, it still fails to meet tne requirements of 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b) of the Commission's regula-l tions. A contention to be admissible must be accompanied by the basis l
l
-g-for the contention set forth with reasonable specificity.
Id This basis must be sufficient to show that the contention relates to the facility in quest on, and that further inquiry is warranted.
i Peach Bottom, supra.
Additional Contention 1 merely states, first, that the increased releases of Iodine-129 and Krypton-85 as a result of the handling and storage of additional spent fuel will be inimical to the health and safety -
of tb public and, second, that failure of licensee to calculate such additional emissions precludes a finding that the proposed amendment is not inimical to the public health and safety.
Intervenors give no factual support for these allegations. They cite no documentary sources for taeir concern. They have not provided any facts from which the Board could determine that further inquiry into the emissions of Iodine-129 and Krypton-85 is warranted.
Since this contention is utterly lacking in basis it is inadmissible.
3.
Additional Contentions 2 Through 8 Fail to Comply with the Commission's Regulations and Should not be Admitted as Matters in Controversy in this Proceeding.
Additional Contentions 2 through 8 are statements that the applica-tion should not be approved because certain actions, such as the encapsula-tion of defective spent fuel assemblies before their placement into the spent fuel pool, isolation of containment during fuel handling, the pre-and post-installation monitoring of radiation levels in the pool area, the shipment of the "old spent fuel racks" offsite in one piece, limita-tion on the quantity and height of loads which are carried over to the
. spent fuel pool, the absence of a pool cover, and the failure to borate the spent fuel pool during removal and installation of the racks, will not be taken by licensee.
In regard to all of these actions, Intervenors also contend that they should be license conditions for approval of the amendment. No reference to specific sections of the Licensee's Description and Safety Analysis or Safety Evaluation Report is made.
No technical oasis for the conclusionary allegation of tne contentions is alleged much less referenced.
Intervenors make no statement of the reasons why such additional actions are necessary in the case of the Big Rock Point spent fuel pool. They make no attempt to show whether these actions even apply to the type of spent fuel pool found at Big Rock. Therefore, these contentions lack a basis and should not be admitted as matters in contro-versy in this proceeding.
4.
Additional Contention 9-1 Lacks Basis and Should not be Admitted as a Matter In Controversy in this Proceeding.
As discussed 1c.Section III.A, supra, this contention is untimely.
Even if it had been timely filed, however, it would still lack the requisite basis for admission as a matter in controversy in this proceeding. The contention states that there has been no assessment of alternatives, as required by Sect..n 102(2)(E) of the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA). The contention goes on to state "the Environ-mental Impact Assessment is deficient in numerous ways, including without limitations its statement that the cost of the no-need for power alterna-tive are the costs of shutting down the plant."
First, Section 102(2)(e) of NEPA requires consideration of alterna-tives to a proposed action only when there is an unresolved conflict in
. the alternative uses of available resources. 42 U.S.C 9 4332(2)(E).
Intervenors have made no attempt to show what unresolved conflicts in the alternative uses of available resources exist in this case. Therefore, they have not established any basis for their statement that Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA requires consideration of alternatives to this proposed spent fuel pool expansion.
In addition, Intervenors' statement that the EIA is inadequate provides no basis for the contention that Section 102('2)(EE of NEPA requires alterna-tives to be discussed in this case.
Intervenors claim that the EIA is inadequate in numerous ways but fail to specify them. Their reference to the Staff statement in the EIA concerning the costs of a particular alterna-tive does not provide any basis for the admission of this contention as a matter in controversy in this proceeding. Staff discretionary consideration of alternatives does not relate to the issue of whether or not there exists here an unresolved conflict in alternative uses of the available resources. Therefore, this contention lacks basis and should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
5.
Intervenors Have Failed to Establish an Adequate Basis for the Admission of Additional Contention 10-1 as a Matter in Controversy in this Proceeding.
Additional Contention 10-1 as discussed in Section III.A, supra, is untimely. A balancing of the five factars weighs against the admission of this contention as a matter in controversy in this proceeding. Even i; this contention had been filed in a timely manner, it would still lack the basis required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) of the Commission's regula-
. tions. The contention merely states that the spent fuel pool expansion would increase the danger to the health and safety of the public from tornado or turbine missiles. The contention goes on to state that the modified pool would not withstand such accidents "within the limits set in f4RC regulations."
Intervenors fail to state in what way the expansion makes the spent fuel pool more susceptible to turbine or tornado missiles than at present. They fail to point to the regulations which are of concern to them. Therefore, this contention is vague, and lacks the basis necessary to make it admissible as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
6.
Additional Contention 11-1 Lacks the Basis Requisite for its Admission as a Matter in Controversy in this Proceeding.
Additional Contention 11-1 is untimely, and the five factors discussed in Section III.A supra, weigh against its admission in this proceeding.U ntervenors failed to give any reasons or factual support I
for their contention that this particular spent fuel pool expansion requires the preparation of a environmental impact statemeri. At best this contention should be treated as a legal issue to be briefed by the parties at the end of the evidentiary proceeding when the facts have been received into the record. However, since Intervenors have failed to file this contention on time and have failed to establish any basis for it, the contention should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
y It should be noted that the Board has admitted a similar contention put forth by another party in a timely manner.
J 7.
Additional Contention 11-2 has been Previously Litigated and Should not be Admitted as a Matter in Controversy in this Proceeding.
Additional Contention 11-2 is untimely and should not be admitted into this proceeding.
In addition the issue has already been extensively litigated in this proceeding as a result of a Licensing Board question.
In ALAB-636, the Appeal Board specifically held that NEPA does not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement on the continued operation of tne Big Rock facility. Id. at 329.
Intervenors have filed a motion with the Licensing Board asking the Board to exercise its discretion to require such an environmental impact statement. This motion is still pending. That issue was briefed by the parties and should await the Board's ruling without admitting it as a contention in this proceeding.
8.
Additional Cor.tention 12 is Vague, Lacks Basis and Should not be Admitted as a Matter in Controversy in this Proceeding.
Additional Contention 12 is untimely and should not be admitted as a matter in controversy. See Section III.A supra.
Even if such a contention were filed in a timely manner, it would be too vague to be the subject of litigation.
In addition, it lacks any stated basis. Such a basis is required by 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations in order for a contention to be admitted as a matter in controversy.
Intervernors' claim is that if a " steam explosion" or " meltdown" occurred at Big Rock, the consequences would be greater than at present,
. due to tne spent fuel pool expansion.
In addition they contend that if a steam explosion occurred such that spent fuel were expelled through containment, the increased quantity of spent fuel in the pool would increase the damage to the health and safety of the public. This contention is vague in that it fails to postulate a definite accident scenario which would lead to the resultant steam explosion.
Intervenors even fail to state whether such an " explosion" or " meltdown" is postu-lated to occur in the spent fuel pool or in the reactor.
Intervenors claim that the damage from spent fuel expelled from containment would be increased due to the e:.pansion, but they do not allege facts which would provide a scenario describing how such an event would occur and how much fuel would be expelled. They have not shown that the expansion would result in any greater likelihood of such an event.
Indeed, Intervenors have failed to show why the Big Rock facility is likely to be subjected to either a " steam explosion", or " meltdown".
A licensee is only required to examine the accidents within the design basis for its plant and to evaluate the consequences of_ a maximum credible accident. See 10 C.F.R. Part 100.
It is for the proponent of this contention to set forth with reasonable specificity the facts support-ing his concern about " steam explosions" or " meltdown".
In this case tnose facts should show why such a generalized accident, rather than an accident related directly to the spent fuel pool should be considered in determining whether this expansion should be permitted. Since Inter-
.enor has failed to give any explanation as to why further inquiry in
. this area is warranted, this contention lacks the basis required by 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b) of the Commission's regulations and should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in th.3 proceeding.
9.
Additional Contention 13 is Vague and Should not be Admitted as a Matter in Controversy in this proceeding.
This contention is untimely. See Section III.A, supra. Even if it were timely filed, it should not be admitted -since it is too vague to allow for litigation.
Intervenors contend that if Big Rock's primary source of power fails, certain safety equipment in the expanded spent fuel pool would be rendered inoperative.
Intervenors refer to the cooling system, but also state that this contention is not limited to the failure of that system. Unless Intervenors are required to set forth those systems about which they are concerned, the Staff woulc not be on notice as to what they must litigate.
If this contention is a valid one, Intervenors should be able at least to identify those systems which they contend would be effected by the failure of Big Rock's power source and wnat effect that failure would have on the expanded spent fuel pool.
In addition, Intervenors have failed to give factual support for their belief that such a power failure would be detrimental to the public healtn and safety. Therefore, this contention lacks a basis set forth with reasonable specificity, which is required by 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b) of the Comission's regulations. Additional Contention 13 should, therefore,
(
not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
. 10. Additional Contention 14 is Inadmissible as a Matter in Controversy in this Proceeding.
Intervenors contend that, in case of certain accidents such as drops of heavy loads, cask-tipping, earthquakes, earthquake missiles and tornado missiles, criticality excursions would be more likely because the pool is unborated. While it is arguable that the contention satisfies the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. i 2.714(b), Additional Contention 14 is untimely, and no good cause has been established for its late appearance in this proceeding. The remaining factors weigh against its admission.
See Section III.A, supra.
- 11. Additional Contention 15 Lacks Basis and is Inadmissible as a Matter in Controversy in this Proceeding.
Adcitional Contention 15 is untimely, and is not based on any new information set forth in the EIA. See Section III.A, supra.
Intervenors contend that the additional heat discharged to Lake Michigan from the plant due to the spent fuel pool expansion would create an unacceptable thermal impact. They claim that the increase in heat discharged will have a harmful effect on the lake's ecosystems, and presents a danger to the health and safety of the public.
Beyond these bald assertions Inter-venors state no factual basis for their contention. There is no discussion of why the thermal impact would become unacceptable because of the increase in heat discharge aue to the e.pansion. There is no discussion of how this incremental heat increase represents a danger to the health and safety of the public; neither is there discussion of what portions of the ecosystem are of concern to Intervenors. Therefore this contention lacks
= _ _ _ _ _..
i the basis required for its admission av a matter in controversy in this proceeding, since it does not show why further inquiry in this area is warranted.
- 12. Additional Contention 16 is Vague and Lacks Basis and is, Therefore, Inadmissible as a Matter in Controversy in this Proceeding.
Again, this contention is untimely and no good cause has been shown for a late filing; therefore, it should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding. See Section III.A. supra.
Intervenors contend that, somehow, the presence of additional plutonium enriched fuel onsite will lead to more leakage of radioactive material, which would be detrimental to the health and safety of the public.
Intervenors make no attempt to explain how the mere presence of more fuel onsite insures that there would be more leakage of radioactive material.
They do not indicate how the mere presence of plutonium would cause more leakage of radioactive r.aterial. This contention is so vague that it fails to put the Staff on notice as to what is tc be litigated.
It fails to meet the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b).
Therefore, it should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
- 13. Additional Contention 17-1 is Outside the Scope of this Proceeding and Should not be Admitted as a Matter in Controversy.
First, this contention is untimely.
See Section III.A, supra.
Second, Intervenors make the assertion, without factual support, that the Big Rock Point Plant has not been seismically qualified.
Intervenors contend that no amendment may be approved because the plant as a whole
, does not meet NRC standards. This is an attempt by Intervenors to discuss the seismic design of the plant which was discussed at the time the plant's operating license was issued. Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Plant), Intermediate Decision,1 AEC 342 (May 5,1960). This limited issue proceeding is not a place in which to litigate the seismic design of the entire plant. Therefore, this contention is outside the scope of this proceeding and should'not be admitted as a matter in contro-versy in this proceeding.
- 14. Additional Contention 17-2 is Vague and Should not be Admitted as a Matter in Controversy in This Proceeding.
Adaitional Contention 17-2 is untimely. See Section III.A, supra.
Even had this contention been filed in a timely manner, it should cr. be admitted is a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
Intervenors claim that in the event a earthquake an increase in the quantity of spent fuel on site would increase the possibility of meltdown and the danger to the health and safety of the public and the release of radio-active water or material.
Intervenors fail to describe what they mean by a "mel tdown".
In addition they fail to describe why the likelihood of a meltdown at this facility would be increased due to an earthquake or what size earthquake is being contemplated by the Intervenors.
Therefore, this contention is so vague as not to put the Staff on notice as to what must be litigated.
It should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
.n. -..,.
?
- 15. Additional Contention 18 Lacks Basis and is, Therefore, Inadmissible as a Contention in this Proceeding.
Additional Contention 18 ant. all its subparts are untimely and should not be admitted. See Section III.A, supra.
Even if the contention had been timely filed, it would fail to meet the basis requirements for 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b).
Intervenors contend that the spent fuel pool expansion request is deficient because it fails to disclose the building of a radwaste facility onsite, and the problems that construction of such a facility would create in conjunction with the expansion of the spent fuel pool.
Intervenors fail to describe the type of facility which they contend is being contructed or fail to factually support their allegation that such a building affects the spent fuel pool expansion. They nave failed to establish a nexus between the expansion and the construction of the radwaste facility. They have not shown that further inquiry into this area is warranted.
Intervenors next state tnat the spent fuel pool expansion and the radwaste facility construction would increase the radioactive materials onsite in a way whicn is inimical to the public health and safety. They fail to give any factual support for this allegation; therefore, they have not shown that any further inquiry in this area is warranted.
Additional Contention 18-3 alleges that the purpose of this expansion is to allow storage of fuel from other nuclar facilities and the storage of waste from otner organizations.
Intervenors contend that Big Rock is not licensed to do so. However, Intervenors fail to cite to any factual support for these allegations.
For example, they fail to point to any place in the licensee application in which such a purpose is even
. mentioned.
Intervenors have not even attempted to snow why this contention should be considered to be a valid one, and why further inquiry in this area is warranted. Therefore, they have failed with regard to this entire contention to set forth a basis with reasonable specificity as required by 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b) of the Commission's regula-tions. The contention should not be admitted as a matter in controversy in this proceeding.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above none of Intervenors' contentions should be admitted as matters in controversy on the grounds that:
1.
They are untimely and, 2.
They lack the requisite basis or specificity for admission as matters in controversy in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
[ (D L) G Q_ N TOd Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of September,1981.
e
. = -. -,. -
-,, ~...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:GISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
^
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155
)
(Big Rock Point Plant)
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first c4ss, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day of September,1981.
Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1120 Connecticut Ave, N.W., #325 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20036 Washingtoa, D.C.
20555
- John A. Leithauser Dr. Oscar M.. Paris Leithauser and Leithauser, P.C.
Administratv'e Judge Opal Plaza, Suite 212 Atomic Safety.ind Licensing Board 13301 Eight Mile Road U.S. Nuclear ReSulatory Commission East Detroit, MI 48021 Washington, D.C.
20555
- John O'Neill, II Mr. Frederick J. Shon Route 2, Box 44 Administrative Judge Maple City, Michigan 49664 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ch:-ista-Maria Washington, D.C.
20555
- Route 2, Box 108c Charlevoix, MI 49720 Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Ms. JoAnne Bier Isham, Lincoln & Beale 204 Clinton One First National Plaza Charlevoix, MI 49720 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603
.-
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Thomas Dammann Appeal Board Panel Route 3, Box 241 U.S. fluclear Regulatory Corrodssion Charlevoix, MI 49720 Washington, D. C.
20555 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Consumers Power Co.
Board Panel 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, MI 49201 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Gordon Howie
- Docketing and Service Section 411 Pine U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Commission Boyne City, MI 49712 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Jim Mills Herbert Semmel, Esq.
Rout.e 2, Box 108 Urban Law Institute of Charlevoix, MI 49720 The Antioch School of Law 1624 Crescent Place, fi.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 p,'LQ_/ CG ?_
/Y'" M O Janice E. Moore Counsel fcr NRC Staff
- i i
l I
I I
t a
l
__,_...,,,m._,___,_,..
-